The case between Azad Singh, Delhi (appellant) and ITO Ward-42(1), Delhi (respondent) pertains to the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The case was filed on 13th June 2019 and concluded with a final order on 12th January 2022. The case was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi “SMC” Bench through video conferencing.
Azad Singh, residing in Village Hiron Kudna, New Delhi, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, New Delhi, dated 10th December 2018. The appellant contested the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-42(1), New Delhi, which led to the assessment of long-term capital gains and the resultant tax liability.
The case was filed to challenge the reassessment order passed by the ITO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Azad Singh contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper and reasonable opportunity being provided to present his case. He argued that the reassessment was based on incorrect and incomplete reasons, lacking proper application of mind, and was conducted in a hurried manner to finalize a time-barring assessment.
Azad Singh raised several grounds of appeal, including:
The Tribunal, comprising Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member, examined the grounds of appeal and the submissions made by the Senior Departmental Representative (DR). The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information regarding the sale of immovable property by the assessee. Despite several notices, the assessee did not provide adequate evidence or attend hearings, leading the AO to proceed with a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act.
The AO assessed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 42,89,119/- based on the sale consideration of agricultural land. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal observed that the issue of whether the land in question qualified as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act was not adequately examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly examine whether the land sold was a capital asset or entitled to any deductions under Section 54 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the AO to re-examine these issues after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case.
The appeal filed by Azad Singh for AY 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine whether the land sold was a capital asset and if the assessee was entitled to any deductions under Section 54 of the Act, ensuring a fair hearing process.
Judicial Member: Shri Kul Bharat
Date of Order: 12/01/2022
Copy forwarded to:
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform